The People v. Mark Peterson Trial: Equal Justice For All In Contra Costa County!

by Labor Video Project
Sunday Jan 22nd, 2017 6:14 PM

The People v. Mark Peterson trial was held on January 18th, 2017 at the Contra Costa District Attorney's office. A seven count indictment was read about the personal corruption, obstruction of justice and retaliatory prosecution by Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson

Contra Costa District Attorney Mark A. Peterson has been the subject of harsh criticism, including calls for his resignation, since early December when it was made public that he used more than $66,000 from his campaign’s fund on personal expenses from 2011 to 2015, in violation of state law.

Peterson has issued multiple public apologies and agreed to return the $66,000 to his campaign’s fund. He issued a brief written statement to this newspaper following the FPPC’s decision.

“I accept responsibility for my actions and the FPPC has now approved a settlement of this matter,” Peterson said. “I apologize for my errors and I will continue to work hard for the people of Contra Costa County.”

Thursday’s FPPC meeting also brought to light a statewide issue: Commissioners, by their own admission, are having difficulty coming up with a system to impose consistent penalties against elected officials and candidates who step out of line.

Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of solidifying the $45,000 fine, moments after the commission rejected a measure that would have asked FPPC staff to come up with a higher fine amount. That measure was rejected 2-3.

Commissioners Maria Audero and Gavin Wasserman argued in favor of imposing a higher penalty and clashed with commission enforcement chief Galena West about whether Peterson paying back the $66,000 mitigated his conduct.

West pointed to other cases where politicians had been caught misappropriating funds and failed to pay back the full amount.

“We’ve gotten back $111,000 from Mr. Peterson,” West said. “I think that’s something we should definitely keep in mind when we’re looking at these cases. … If there is no incentive for people to pay back their campaigns, then they won’t.”

Audero, though, suggested Peterson had used the campaign cash as a “personal slush fund” and argued that the DA’s only real out-of-pocket expense would be the $45,000. Wasserman also pointed out that Peterson reimbursing his campaign meant he could continue to benefit from the money.

“I tend not to look at what they have to pay back because that’s what they have to pay back, that’s what they’ve taken wrongfully,” Wasserman said. “They’re really essentially just in the position of making that public trust whole. … That would mean the greater the wrong, the greater the mitigation by paying back.”

Despite the rain, a group of about 25-30 protestors held a mock trial of Contra Costa DA Mark A. Peterson on Wednesday. (Nate Gartrell/Bay Area News Group) Related Articles

Peterson served as his campaign’s own treasurer from 2011 to 2015, and submitted documents to the FPPC that didn’t contain any record of the $66,000 state officials say he spent on movie tickets, restaurant meals, hotel rooms, clothes and other personal expenses. Now that the fine has been finalized, the FPPC in coming weeks will likely make public reports detailing Peterson’s personal expenditures, according to a commission spokesman.

The same day his conduct was made public, Peterson issued a public apology. Since then, criticism — as well as calls for Peterson’s resignation — have piled on.

The latest political action against Peterson came Wednesday, with a daytime protest led by civil attorney Pamela Price. It culminated with a mock trial of Peterson, where various “witnesses” read statements blasting Peterson’s decision to only charge one officer, a retired Oakland cop, with a crime in the infamous Bay Area sex exploitation scandal, involving a young woman whom Price briefly represented.

Protesters also read statements about the DA’s decision not to charge the Richmond police officer who shot unarmed Richard “Pedie” Perez III during a confrontation in 2014, and frequently referenced Michael Gressett, a deputy district attorney who was allowed to keep his job after being accused of sexually assaulting a colleague.

A former fraud prosecutor in Peterson’s office, William Murphy, submitted a letter to the FPPC saying his former boss had “embezzled” the $66,000. In a subsequent interview, Murphy confirmed he thought Peterson had committed a crime.

Now an Alameda County prosecutor, Murphy listed the Gressett controversy, as well as allegations made by Contra Costa prosecutors that Peterson had retaliated against them for supporting attorney Dan O’Malley, as his reasons for leaving the Contra Costa DA’s office.

“Those people who donated to his campaign didn’t think they were buying him lunch,” Murphy said. He stopped just short of saying Peterson should be charged with a crime.

“The attorney general’s office should look closely at the case, and I waffle there because it’s their call to make,” he said.

In December, hours before the FPPC decision was to be made public, Peterson issued a public statement admitting to the violations and apologizing. He said he was “humbled and embarrassed,” and pointed out that he’d agreed to return the $66,000 and pay the $45,000 fine.

Nate Gartrell Nate Gartrell covers crime, politics, and corruption in Contra Costa County. He joined the Bay Area News Group in 2014. Outside of journalism, he doesn't do much. He aspires to visit all 30 Major League Baseball stadiums. Reach him at 925-779-7174.

Contra Costa District Attorney Mark A. Peterson has been the subject of harsh criticism, including calls for his resignation, since early December when it was made public that he used more than $66,000 from his campaign’s fund over five years on personal expenses, in violation of state law.

Despite the rain, a group of about 25-30 protestors held a mock trial of Contra Costa DA Mark A. Peterson on Wednesday. (Nate Gartrell/Bay Area News Group)

• Contra Costa DA Mark Peterson slapped with $45k fine for spending campaign money on movie tickets, other personal expenses Peterson served as the treasurer of his own campaign the whole time, and submitted documents to the FPPC that didn’t contain any record of the $66,000. Commission investigators say the money was used on movie tickets, meals, clothes, hotel rooms, and other personal expenses. On Wednesday, a protest led by civil attorney Pamela Price culminated with a mock trial of Peterson, where various “witnesses” read statements.

Price, who represented the young woman at the center of the infamous Bay Area law enforcement sex exploitation scandal, blasted Peterson’s decision to only charge one officer, a retired Oakland cop, with a crime.

Protesters also read statements about the DA’s decision not to charge the Richmond police officer who shot unarmed Richard “Pedie” Perez III during a confrontation in 2014, and frequently referenced Michael Gressett, a deputy district attorney who was allowed to keep his job after being accused of sexually assaulting a colleague.

The FPPC on Thursday is scheduled to decide whether to fine Peterson $45,000. In coming days, the FPPC will likely make public the expense reports detailing Peterson’s personal expenditures, which began in 2011 after Peterson won a hotly contested race against attorney Dan O’Malley.

Peterson stopped making personal expenditures in October 2015 after being informed he was randomly selected for an audit, according to FPPC documents.

In December, hours before the FPPC decision was to be made public, Peterson issued a public statement admitting to the violations and apologizing. He said he was “humbled and embarrassed,” and pointed out that he’d agreed to return the $66,000 and pay an additional $45,000 fine.

Nate Gartrell Nate Gartrell covers crime, politics, and corruption in Contra Costa County. He joined the Bay Area News Group in 2014. Outside of journalism, he doesn't do much. He aspires to visit all 30 Major League Baseball stadiums. Reach him at 925-779-7174.

The Richmond city employee who won the 2015 James Madison Freedom Of Information Whistleblower Award has now also won $104,000 as part of a legal settlement with the city. Stacie Plummer’s lawsuit accused the city of retaliating against her as a whisteblower, as Plummer said her career suffered between 2012 and 2014 after she reported wrongdoing by a manager. Plummer’s actions forced the former assistant city manager and human resources director, Leslie Knight, into early retirement. Among the malfeasance Plummer reported: she said Knight was running a gift-basket business using city facilities, employees and other resources, and that Knight was also improperly receiving a $450 monthly car allowance while also using a city vehicle. The charges were widely reported by the local media. In a statement from the Mayor’s Office Tuesday, the city said it decided to settle the federal case “based upon the likely cost of defense and the cost of trial.” The city did not admit to wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The mayor’s office also said it hired independent investigators who determined “with a few minor exceptions” that dozens of complaints by Plummer were unfounded. “The City has a zero tolerance policy which prohibits discrimination and retaliation in any form and that policy was not breached in this matter,” the mayor’s office statement said. Here is an account Plummer gave of her eight-year tenure under Knight in this March 2013 clip: The story has been amended to state that the city settled with Plummer. An earlier report incorrectly stated she won a judgement. Stacey Plummer's Lawsuit http://www.scribd.com/doc/298922347/Plummer-v-Richmond

"One is enough. Two is too many. And three is an epidemic," said President of the Local 21 chapter in Richmond Sam Casas as he held the city's Code of Ethics outside City Chambers Tuesday in reference to Assistant City Manager Leslie Knight's violations to city code. (Photo by: Rachel de Leon) By Rachel de Leon Posted April 3, 2013 1:12 pm Efforts to have Richmond Assistant City Attorney and Human Resources Director Leslie Knight removed from her position were deterred Tuesday evening, when a resolution calling for her dismissal was taken off the city council agenda shortly before the meeting.

The resolution, introduced by Councilmember Jovanka Beckles, recommended that City Manager Bill Lindsay, who has the power to fire employees, terminate Knight for violating city policies, as found in a city-funded independent investigation.

In a public statement Lindsay released in March, he listed the policies Knight had violated, according to the investigation—which include using a city car while collecting a car allowance and using city employees and time for work unrelated to the city—and said he’s taken disciplinary action short of terminating her from her job.

Beckles said at the beginning of the meeting that she was removing the item from the regular agenda so it could be scheduled for the next closed session meeting. “I think it’s also a personnel issue, which is raised and handled in closed session,” Beckles said.

The employee who brought the complaints against Knight last year, Finance Manager Stacie Plummer, said before the meeting that Beckles called her around 4:30 that day to tell her the item was being removed. Plummer said removing the item might have a more favorable outcome for those calling for Knight’s termination if this means the city council will be able to look at the full investigation during closed session. The city released part of the investigation’s findings last month, and Plummer said she has not seen the rest yet.

At a rally held outside city chambers before the meeting—the second one in two weeks—a group of about 20 people called for Knight’s removal, saying it was the only acceptable action. Two speakers likened her continuing employment to an illness that’s infected the city’s administration, and said the only cure would be to fire her.

“Until this is done, we cannot heal as a city,” said Andres Soto, a member of the Richmond Progressive Alliance.

More than a dozen speakers spoke on the resolution during the public comment period, and many voiced a similar call to action, asking for accountability for the city’s staff. “It’s the notion that the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everyone else,” said Richmond resident and political activist Charles Smith.

Retiring Knight should be fired, prosecuted-District Attorney Mark A Peterson MIA Retiring Knight should be fired, prosecuted http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_23432427/june-12-letters-editor Why is Richmond Director of Human Resources Leslie Knight retiring July 1 instead of being fired? Why isn't the Contra Costa County district attorney prosecuting Knight for more than $37,000 of misappropriated funds, theft of time, using city staff and city facilities to run a private business, and retaliating against an employee for refusing to work for her private business? Why didn't City Manager Bill Lindsay put Knight on paid administrative leave when he received a report concerning her transgressions? Why did City Attorney Bruce Goodmiller deny the City Council, the press and the public access to the $65,000 investigative report paid for by the taxpayers? As an observer of county politics, I suggest it's all about corruption. In Contra Costa County, politicians and connected fellow travelers are not likely to face prosecution and jail time. Rob a store, go to jail. Rob the taxpayers, get a fond farewell and a fat retirement -- thanks to a district attorney who is missing in action. Good government starts with better enforcement. The residents of this county deserve better. Charles T. Smith Richmond

Request For Independent Investigation--Retaliation, Harassment, Misconduct Against City Of Richmond IFPTE Local 21 Member Stacie Plummer

City Council Members, Personnel Board Members, Human Rights & Human Relations Commission Members: When I consider as whole all of the unprecedented occurrences at the City of Richmond impacting just me since I made sustained complaints to the City Council, federal, state, and local authorities and have pending complaints under review by the Personnel Board and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), harassment and retaliation against me has clearly reached a level of such pervasiveness it permeates the highest levels of Richmond city administration and is now trickling down to its lowest levels. This conduct is a clear violation of the City’s general order 33, the federal whistleblower protection act, the state whistleblower protection act and the Myers Milias Brown Act (MMBA) and it now requires an objective, extensive and thorough investigation. The City does not really have a NO TOLERANCE policy against this misconduct (when it comes to Stacie Plummer) as the policy falsely states. Among this obvious and heinous abuse, the additional trouble for me is that there is now no office in the City that has not engaged in retaliatory and harassing conduct against me including the City Attorney’s Office. Here are the facts:

1. In an unprecedented, extrajudicial action, Bruce Goodmiller and Bruce Soublet (City Attorneys) shared confidential information with the Personnel Board that caused the Personnel Board to deny my grievance hearing of situations bearing upon my employment conditions and status. Their acts are violations of the City Charter, Personnel Rules, MMBA and my union MOU. Their acts are retaliatory. 2. Bruce Soublet and Lisa Stephenson (attorneys) are aware that they participated in and that I reported their roles in covering up Sherry Drobner’s LEAP contract scandal with state money given to a current city employee who is Ms. Drobner’s teacher while the employee worked under a contract doing the same job Ms. Drobner helped him get paid to do as a city employee. The same job and tasks Ms. Drobner is reported to leave her LEAP job to go do, in lieu of her personal teacher/contractor/employee, when he is out. Mr. Soublet’s actions and participation are included in my federal, state, and local authorities’ complaint. Ms. Drobner has a documented pattern of granting employees contracts using state and federal pass through funds. Ms. Curl directed me to investigate Ms. Drobner’s contract issues after Ms. Curl received a tip from one of Ms. Drobner’s retiring employees. Yet Ms. Curl said nothing about her directions to me regarding her request that I investigate Ms. Drobner’s contracts to the current investigator the City Attorney’s office has hired to investigate me regarding “unprofessional emails” exchanged between me and Sherry Drobner. I also shared Ms. Drobner’s contract misconduct and the pattern with Lisa Stephenson and Bruce Soublet (both attorneys) and they took no action on behalf of the people of Richmond. This is unlawful and retaliatory. 3. In an unprecedented action, The City Manager committed to provide a response to me on the reneging of the promotion that was been confirmed by Lisa Stephenson, to my union representative, that Ms. Knight has been denying for years due to her arbitrary, discriminatory, and retaliatory reasons against me . Yet The City Manager remained silent after his commitment to provide a decision response and then he got Bruce Soublet (acting as Personnel Board Council) to advocate on the City Manager’s behalf before the Personnel Board regarding the City Manager’s lack of response. All of this is bad faith bargaining, retaliation and a clear violation of my rights to due process according to local, state rules and laws. 4. Katy Curl has been aware of the criminal conduct taking place in the library since she arrived. She was also aware of the retaliatory actions being imposed upon me for years by Ms. Knight as we have had hours and hours of conversations about these facts yet she did not report the abusive acts according to city policy and then proceeded to engage in omitting the facts when questioned. Ms. Curl is the one that reported to me that Ms. Knight had “thrown me under the bus” by blaming me for the malfeasance in the library department. Then Ms. Curl began to engage, participate and condone retaliatory and harassment efforts against me by conspiring against me with the very employees she is aware have committed criminal acts. She has obstructed justice and has become an accessory to public crimes through her actions. She has been granted an unprecedented raise of 7% in one year for her collusive participation in this public corruption. These acts are among other things retaliatory. 5. My union representative (Pam Covington), Lisa Stephenson, Katy Curl, and Leslie Knight all made an agreement on March 28, 2012 to upgrade my position according to the Personnel Rules (after Ms. Knight’s 2009 extrajudicial denial of the very same position upgrade). Then through dilatory and evasive tactics they all reneged on the agreement and blamed their decision on the City Manager who during his meeting with me, to discuss the position upgrade, had absolutely no understanding of the position or the personnel rules governing the position upgrade. This is retaliatory. 6. Bill Lindsay wrote that I was insubordinate for my stating I was unable to clear up Ms. Drobner’s false federal grant reports after he was provided with 212 pages of documentation proving beyond a doubt that Ms. Drobner had over billed the federal government for a federal stimulus grant and then she knowingly sent false/fraudulent cost share reports (with Ms. Curl’s permission) to the same federal grantor. This is retaliatory. 7. Mr. Goodmiller has failed to contact legal authorities and/or prosecute employees for misappropriation of funds, resources and benefits ( he called it embezzlement in his warnings) after I provided conclusive evidence, the city charter language and even his own written warnings of civil and criminal penalties for misuse of city resources for personal purposes. Yet Mr. Goodmiller has hired, using taxpayer dollars, an attorney/investigator (expert in harassment and retaliation) to investigate me for “possible unprofessional emails” I sent to two people I reported for gross waste and misconduct (with the emails included in the investigator’s questioning that indicate my clear intent to report these employees’ inappropriate actions to authorities). This is retaliatory. 8. In September 2012, Mr. Goodmiller committed to investigating all of my allegations including the misconduct/malfeasance by library employees and instead had a library audit conducted by a CPA costing $25,000 that says nothing about the actual crimes committed and covered up in the library. This is unlawful and retaliatory.

The City’s costs for this retaliation and harassment scandal against me are mounting: · $600,000 (estimate closer to $800,000) for Ms. Knight’s embezzlement, abuse of authority, grand theft, and misappropriation of public resources.

· $30,000 + the actual payments exceeding that for the investigation of Ms. Knight (awaiting California Public Records Act (CPRA) to confirm payments).

· Ms. Curl’s payoff raise of 7% for her cover up of and collusion in public corruption.

Is the disbarment of attorneys hired on the taxpayer’s dollar to protect and maintain public trust, but instead engage in the promulgation of public crime warranted?

Of all these people acting against me, I am the only actual employee born and raised in Richmond with generations of family and friends still living in Richmond with a career spanning 26 years serving the community of Richmond. How can any taxpayer or resident believe this is justice when all I have ever done was my job with never a bad evaluation, reprimand, counseling memo, threat of disciplinary action over 26 years (until of course I let the city administration's dirty secrets out with pictures and other conclusive documentation).

All criminals have a choice not be reported, exposed and prosecuted . . .the choice is very simple. . .don’t do the crime!

My request now is simple: Investigate the crimes, collusion and corruption hidden among the city administrators and prosecute those perpetrators. Investigate this harassment and retaliation against me - a federal and state protected whistleblower.

I do not succumb to retaliation or harassment as I have endured this torment under Ms. Knight for 8 years so I have grown conditioned to stand again whenever she or one of her minions at the City attempts to knock me down.

Please investigate, prosecute and enforce the "No Tolerance policy" of harassment and retaliation efforts against me in accordance with general order 33. I now am requesting an independent investigation commissioned by the City Council and the Personnel Board excluding any consultation by the City Manager’s Office, Human Resources Department and City Attorney’s Office as they are perpetrators of these acts and are required to provide testimony as part of the investigation.

I am now awaiting acknowledgement from someone on the City Council and the Personnel Board that my request for investigations into these matters has been received.

While Mark Peterson prosecutes poor people and workers he allows the rich and wealthy off the hook. He stole money from his political funds for personal political use but he refuses to resign and the California Attorney General refuses to prosecute this criminal.

Kathleen Sullivan who is the president of the Richmond Contra Costa Black Women Organized For Political Action spoke about the cover-up of sex crimes by a prosecutor of the Contra Costa who got off on a technicality and was put back on the job by District Attorney Mark Peterson

Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson believes he is above the law. He has a long history of corruption, obstruction of justice and retaliatory prosecutions in Contra Costa County. Numerous corrupt government officials in the country have failed to be prosecuted after stealing public money, corruption and retaliating against whistleblowers. The new California Attorney General is being called on to prosecute this criminal.